The accuracy of the election projections based on the pre-election polls of 2000 was surpassed only by the polls of 1976 and 1960, according to a study release today by the National Council on Public Polls. This year's final polls had an average error of 1.1 percentage points on the estimates for George W. Bush and Al Gore. The error on the third place finisher, Ralph Nader, was 1.3 percentage points.

These results were based on the work of 10 polling organizations that used traditional methods for conducting their polls.

Poll

Bush/GoreError

NaderError

Harris Poll

0.0%

2.0%

CBS News

0.5

1.0

IBD/CSM/Tipp

1.0

1.0

ICR/Politics Now

1.0

4.0

Gallup/CNN/USA Today

1.0

1.0

Pew Research

1.0

1.0

Zogby/Reuters

1.0

2.0

ABC News/Wash Post

1.5

0.0

NBC News/WSJ

1.5

0.0

Battleground

2.5

1.0

Average

1.1

1.3

The 2000 election was a tie between Bush and Gore and was the closest election since the Kennedy-Nixon election in 1960. Democrat Gore had a slight edge in the CBS and Zogby polls, while seven of the other polls leaned to Republican Bush. The Harris poll had it tied. Four years ago, all 9 polls erred in favor of overstating Democratic Clinton. Challenger Nader was overstated by 7 of the 10 polls this year. Two got the Nader vote correct. All other polls overstated Nader's vote. Third party candidates typically get less support in the election than they do in the final pre-election polls.

Two other organizations used methods that previously had not been used. Harris Interactive conducted its polls on the Internet among a panel of e-mail users and forecast a tie. Rasmussen's Portrait of America poll was off by 4.5 percentage points on each of the top two candidates. Rasmussen had its interviews conducted by a computer playing a recorded voice with no live interviewer intervening.

AlternativeMethod Polls

Bush/GoreError

NaderError

Harris Interactive

0.0%

1.0%

Rasmussen

4.5

The ten traditional polls used random samples of telephone households and live interviewers to obtain vote intentions from likely voters. Screening questions that were unique to each poll identified likely voters. More detailed methods statements are available from the individual polling organization.

2000-Preliminary

Gore

Bush

Nader

Undecided

Other

Election Results

48%

48%

3%

1%

Zogby

48%

46%

5%

0%

1%

CBS

45%

44%

4%

5%

2%

Harris (Phone)

47%

47%

5%

0%

1%

Gallup/CNN/USA Today

46%

48%

4%

0%

2%

Pew Research

47%

49%

4%

0%

0%

IBD/CSM/TIPP

46%

48%

4%

0%

2%

ICR/Politics Now

44%

46%

7%

1%

2%

NBC/WSJ

44%

47%

3%

4%

2%

ABC/WashPost

45%

48%

3%

3%

1%

Battleground

45%

50%

4%

0%

1%

Alternative Methods

Harris Interactive

47%

47%

4%

0%

2%

Rasmussen

49%

40%

4%

For this election, 2 of the 10 polls overstated Gore's vote while 7 overstated Bush. In the 1996 election, 8 out of 9 polls overstated Democrat Clinton. One poll each year neither under- or over- stated the winners' percentage.

Thanks for the effort. I hear too that Zogby's alleged accuracy does not translate into state races either. Plus, I think too that he has sold himself to the Rats. And yes, come election eve, he'll have more accurate numbers based on "late trends" to keep his reputation. I don't trust him these days...

I'm not carping, but do you know WHICH polls these numbers represent? In the last few days before an election pollsters sometimes adjust their numbers. Sometimes they change them the morning of election itself. That way they can, if they choose, use earlier poll numbers to influence voters and then correct the numbers at the last minute so they look better on the record.

As I recall, Zogby massaged his numbers at the last minute, but I don't recall the details.

Look at the numbers in the poll. Obviously they used the zogby latest "true" poll which had gore at 48% and Bush at 46%. Everyone sang the praises that only zogby got it right, but in reality he only hot half of it right. Bush finished with 98%. It was within the margin of error, but not dead on like everyone claims.

Zogby and CBS were the only polls that showed Gore winning the popular vote. That's what happened. The other polls showed Bush winning the popular vote. That's not what happened. He nailed Gore dead on, and missed Bush by 2 percentage points. That's well within the margin of error. We all know that's not how presidents are elected, but as for polls, Zogby is pretty dang accurate. Those who argue otherwise when it comes to his presidential polls are using million man math.

ON election day 2000 Al Gore broke a long tradition of not campaigning on election day. Al Gore got on his plane in Illinois and went to a state to campaign on Election day itself.

What state was that?

The answer is Florida.

What little bird told Gore that on the final day in the final hour he should go to Florida to campaign? You don't suppose his internal polls showed that state would decide the race do you? You don't suppose the polls told him that if he could pick up a few of thousand votes, it might be enough to win... do you? He almost got it done.

And When they all called Florida for Gore .. how did Bush know it was not true? He called to tell them it was not true. How did he know? You dont' suppose that Bush's internal polls told him he had a tiny slim lead do you?

The fact is the media polls told us in 1980 the race was way to close to call. But the night before election Hamilton Jourdan told Jimmy Carter there was no way he could win. The polls had for weeks shown a big Reagan win and the final poll showed his campaiging had made no change. Just a couple of hours earlier Lyn Nafziger and others had sat down with Reagan on his plane to tell him that nothing had changed.. He had a big lead and was on his way to a huge landslide. The media told us the polls said too close to call. Jimmy Carter tells about learning of his loss in his autobiography. Several people have written about giving Reagan the good news. I think the media did not want to hear it.

The same was true in 84, 88, 92, and 96. The internal polls told both sides what was really happening.

I believe both sides know exactly what is going to take place. Back in 1994 I was in the media. I talked to a Democrat chaiman of an important House committee a day before the election. He told me "The damned Republicans are going to win the house." I was surprised. All the wire and network stories said the Democrats would hold the house by 15 to 20 seats. I asked, "By 2 or 3 seats?" He said, "More like 16 to 20." It was very like 20.

I suspect the Repubicans knew it too. I know the Democrats did.

I really think from all the signs that this is going to be close election. The Repubicans will do well in the House and the Senate will be won by one or 2 seats.

I have no inside information. But Repubicans look happy. Democrats look worried. I am pretty sure both parties know exactly what the situation is right now even if the media pretends it does not.

Thanks for posting this. Obviously one has to only look into the White House and see who is the President to see that Zogby was wrong. To think otherwise means you believe the lies of the RATS that Gore really won, which he did not.

I think that because Zogby is very tight in only using proven voters who voted in the last two elections, his polls are suseptable to error when turnout is higher than normal. That's because Democrats are usually more likely to stay at home than Republicans. So when turnout is high, he tends to err in favor of the Pubs. That would also explain why he was off on the Nader vote. Many of those voting for Nader were probably not regular voters.

Now that you say that one of the heads of the RNC (I think) said we would win the senate by one seat. When Sean went race by race he was predicting a close win in several (but saying if the election was held today). When it went to Arkansas (I think), he was betting on a loss. He predicted MN as ours. I can't remember the other's he said we'd win or lose. He really didn't sound like he was trying to build support for his losing candidates. Rather, he was telling it like it probably is.

CT--Your comments regarding internal polls was very interesting. I also remember the comments you made the other day on Coleman/Mondale race where the Rats were not sharing internal tracking numbers with the presstitutes which you presumed meant they were not good. You also said that you presumed Coleman's were conversely and presumably good. That was borne true on Rush today where he talked about them.

I think that, under this analysis, the same would be true in California where the presstitutes will trumpet a Fields poll showing a Grayout 7 point lead, but nothing from Grayout or Simon's internal tracking numbers. It is for that reason that I think that Simon's hanging in there and Grayout is not the given that the press would make one think.

Another point you make that is very valid, IMHO, is the impression we as outsiders get from what is going on. The Rats are turning to the courts at every opportunity and becoming shriller in their attacks. This is a good sign. I agree that the GOP is the happier of the two parties and only hope that they realize the war is on and not to stop until the last vote is cast. I don't think they will. One or two seats for the GOP in the Senate is definitely a realistic assessment, to this untrained eye.

Very interesting analysis. I imagine that you are right on the money. For example, the Democrats are all sending Capitol staff (here in CA) to one Central Valley District (17 -- Dem incumbent Barbara Matthews vs. Rep challenger Brian McCabe) because they are worried about her. We always know where the Dems have their big concern -- look at where they send their staff.

The race between Simon and Davis is going to be very close. I think last month I predicted Simon by 2-3 pts. I think it's Simon by 1, 45 to 44 with 6 for Camejo and 5 split among all the other candidates. Very, very close. Close enough where cheating could make a difference. Everyone needs to be vigilent at their polls and watch for improprieties. Volunteer to be a poll watcher in solid Dem areas. Democrats have stolen races in California before, particularly in the Central Valley. We need to make sure they can't steal the governorship.

Everything I've heard has been positive, but that's just national media. I will say, however, that this morning I was listening to talking heads (Rep and Dem) on close races, and the Dem was very optimistic about Mondale and Carnahan, and on Dole she said, "It's a tough battle, but turnout will help us." Far less optimistic than the other two. The Republican said, "North Carolina is a Republican state, Dole wins."

Thanks for the great info! I have always wondered if there is some scorecard somewhere that ranks these organizations for accuracy over time. I would love to see something like a sports league standings table with a running accuracy rate and who is first, second, third, etc. I figure if there is such a chart the pollsters hide it. It would be great to whip out though when you hear all these different polls and spins.

And he screwed up Illinois thinking that Moseley-Braun would win--and he screwed up the SC primary on behalf of McCain. He's ok with national trends but doesn't understand the complexity of individual states or regions other than east or west coast.

Well, Gore's worst error was in trying to win Florida, when he SHOULD have been back in his home state of Tennessee campaigning there. If only he had won TN, the whole question of Florida would have been moot.....

Paul Begala called his book "It is still the economy stupid" and now John Zogby appears and says the same thing. I wonder if Carville thought this plan up? Mind you this poll was taken before the Wellstone mess that the democrats did the other night.

The new zogby poll is out and John says its the economy that is on voters minds and that America is at a tie again.

I hate to shatter zogbys dream but from what I see the defense of this nation is number one and we are about to see a republican landslide next week in the 2002 election. Just like the profilers were way off with the sniper, so is Zogby with the 2002 election.

Zogby supporters, like Clinton supporters will NEVER EVER admit their guy's corrupt.

Zogby polls are designed to influence.......not reflect. Much the same is true of ALL the media polls. Notice the FNC poll that Dick Morris gleefully reported that didn't coincide with ANY other polls and was completely off the mark.

Good analysis, thanks for the information.Dick Morris asserted for a longtime that his internals(polls) had Clinton way ahead of Dole in the spring of 1996 and the election was in the bag.No wonder they were so cocky.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.